Linked by David Adams on Fri 20th Apr 2012 01:31 UTC, submitted by fsmag
Multimedia, AV "When I started working on a no-DRM, open-standards-based solution for distributing high-definition video on fixed media ('Lib-Ray'), I naturally thought of Theora, because it was developed as a free software project. Several people have suggested, though, that the VP8 codec would be a better fit for my application. This month, I've finally gotten the necessary vpxtools and mkvtoolnix packages installed on my Debian system, and so I'm having a first-look at VP8. The results are very promising, though the tools are somewhat finicky."
Thread beginning with comment 515054
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
bassbeast
Member since:
2007-11-11

So your answer is to ignore the elephant in the room then? because that is what you are doing. After all i can buy an H.264 license and the odds are virtually nil that i will have a thing to worry about if I am a manufacturer because if H.264 is shot down it will cost MPEG-LA huge piles of money therefor they have a stake in the fight. Google on the other hand other than using it some on YouTube really doesn't seem to care one way or another about WebM so you would be on your own.

And this of course is a wonderful example of "welcome to fantasy island" where everything that doesn't follow your ideal MUST be some evil nasty dirty troll poo poo head, instead of what it is which is reality. Whether you choose to accept reality, which is MPEG-LA has a history of suing, has a metric buttload of money and could bury any small project in lawsuits, is of course up to you but don't pretend that just because you live on fantasy island that the rest of us live there too.

While i would love it if ALL software patents were abolished tomorrow that simply isn't the world we live in. Heck if MPEG-LA wanted to get nasty they could simply start by crushing X264 since they didn't use clean room engineering to come up with their decoder/encoder. And if you honestly think that a company making the incredibly huge amounts that MPEG-LA makes on licensing is gonna say 'Oh your FOSS? Well that makes all the difference, lets hold hands and dance through the flowers" if you threaten their business i have a bridge you might be interested in. Whether you like it or not until software patents are abolished they hang over every project like this one like a Sword of Damocles and can be just as dangerous.

Reply Parent Score: 0

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

if H.264 is shot down it will cost MPEG-LA huge piles of money therefor they have a stake in the fight. Google on the other hand other than using it some on YouTube really doesn't seem to care one way or another about WebM so you would be on your own.


While Google doesn't depend on codec-business as their main source of income it would still hurt their business and income if MPEG-LA did actually attack VP8/WebM. If you had been following the trends you'd notice that Google is slowly building WebM/VP8 support into all their relevant services and applications, they have various kinds of deals with H/W manufacturers regarding support for it, and so on.

This has been discussed at length before, even here on OSNews, but in short the situation seems to be as thus: when Google acquired On2 they acquired also some patents that predate H.264 and which H.264 seemingly does violate and thus both sides have 'weaponry' to aim at the other side. The thing is, it would be a bad business decision on either side to actually do anything about it as it could at worst lead to both of them losing large portions of their related patent-portfolio. That would be devastating for MPEG-LA as their main source of income is licensing fees from their codecs whereas Google has other means of securing income.

In other words, the elephant may indeed exist, but it's all tied up in chains and red tape.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

So your answer is to ignore the elephant in the room then?


No, my answer is to deny there is an elephant in the room, demand proof that there has ever even been an elephant in the room and point out that you're not even in the same building as me, let alone the same room.

Reply Parent Score: 3